Appeal No. 1997-0674
Application No. 08/214,971
to provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine
reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See
Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).
The mere fact that the prior art structure could be modified
does not make such a modification obvious unless the prior art
suggests the desirability of doing so. See In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The three components of the Stein container - the outer
box, the inner box, and the intermediate plastic bag - are
attached together and are disposed of together. In order to
meet the terms of the claims, Stein’s inner box, which is
rigid, and plastic bag, which provides liquid impermeability
and resistance to chemical degradation, would have to be
detached from the outer box and replaced with a single element
that has these qualities, and is separately disposable. To
make these changes would result in completely discarding the
Stein method, changing it from throwing away the entire
container to throwing away only the inner liner, and would
totally reconstruct the Stein container, eliminating all but
the outer support and replacing the two inner components with
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007